Evaluation of Jon’s perspective: Team formation – despite having mentioned the importance of having a metamorphosis, the author has not recommended a course of action which would facilitate its occurrence, an alternative for dealing with the problematic history amongst the team members could be administered through having personalized initiation conversations that are followed by structured understanding conversations. Structure and process - the accountability principle which the author lists, can indeed enhance the collaboration amongst the team members, provided that routine and accurate performance conversations are conducted . Team communication- the ground rules according to which, the commutations ought to be performed have not been set , this limitation could obstruct the formation of trust among the team members
, because the existing animosities amongst the team members cannot be regulated without proper conveyance of the personal view points .
Evaluation of Richard’s perspective: The author recommends placing Randy on the pedestal and allowing him to present his recommendations in a unique manner, this element would greatly hinder the formation of a team-spirit. The conduct, communication protocol and operational structure within team should be clearly defined and applicable to all. The dual-structured preferential approach which aims at controlling the debilitating effects of Randy’s conduct, will create a sense of dissatisfaction amongst the remaining team members, hence preventing the ascendance into an effective team status. On the other hand, the understanding conversation that the author suggests having with Randy, may align the objectives of the team with those of randy.
Since the clarifications would be provided discreetly, Randy would not be forced to respond in his usually defensive manner and might be susceptible to internalizing the conversation.
Evaluation of Genevieve’s perspective: The three problems that arise from this recommendation are: “ the preferential treatment “ problem and its repercussions ( mentioned above ) , the advice for Eric to assume the helm and implement a course of action ( without having conducted an understanding conversation with the CEO ) , and lastly the expedient call to advance to the
“performing “ stage without having conducted any of the forming , storming and norming stages in a satisfactory manner . On the other hand, the affirmative leadership styled conduct that the author recommends for Eric to adopt, could inforce structure and facilitate an enhanced level of collaboration amongst the team members.
Evaluation of Paul’s perspective: The author has suggested the optimal methodology to deal with the destructive “fusion “/influence that Randy exerts on his peers. Through implementing
Paul’s perspective, we would be able to harness the analytical horse power of Randy, whilst enforcing the rules of engagement within the team. By administering this system, we would insure that all members interact in a professional, respectful and supportive manner. While the formation of an effective team depends on a large number of elements, this approach constitutes a crucial step for both the formation of…